E stablislaed.  1833. 


k-  SHUTE, 

^‘•^Acturer  ot  ^we, 


1% 


415  to  429  West  18th  Street,  bet.  9th  & 10th  Aves,, 


Bm  l0rfe: 

Styles  & Cash,  Steam  Printers  and  Stationers, 
77  Eighth  Avenu^e. 


OUR  PIPES  ARE  BRANDED, 


■ ;.Y 


iTir 


2 


PRICE  LIST  OF  DRAIR  PIPE. 


Size  of 
Bore. 

Main 
Pipe, 
per  fr. 

Bends 
& Elb’s, 
each. 

2 in.. 

$0  13 

$0  40 

3 “.. 

16 

50 

4 “.. 

20 

55 

5 “ . . 

25 

85 

6 “.. 

30 

1 15 

7 “.. 

3.5 

1 50 

8 

45 

2 00 

9 “.. 

55 

2 50 

10 

70 

3 00 

12  “.. 

80 

3 75 

1.7  “.. 

1 25 

5 00 

18  “.. 

1 60 

7 50 

Branches  each,  one 

Traps, 

foot 

Lengths. 

each. 

$0 

48 

0; 

$1 

00 

61 

1 

25 

75 

5 s p, 

1 

75 

00 

u ^ ss 

2 

50 

1 

05 

c2 

o 

50 

1 

20 

r JS  ^ 

a,  ^ 

5 

00 

1 

1 

45 

70 

.2  o >-• 

6 

00 

00 

2 

00 

t)  a ^ 

8 

00 

2 

52  J 

I..4ROK  BKANCIfE.S, 

PEK  LINEAL  FOOT. 


15x6  or  under,  1.75  I 15x7  or  over,  ‘2.25 
18x6  “ 2..50  I 18x7  “ 3.00 


Six  inch  Sewer  Con- 
nections, eacli,  40c. 

INCREASERS&  REDUCERS 

charged  at  the  price 
of  Bends,  measured 
at  their  largest  open- 
ings. 

OVAL  FLUE  PIPE.- 

8x4  in.,  per  ft.,  40c. 
12x4  “ “ .lOc. 

12x0  “ “ 60c. 


TABLE  showing  Weight,  Capacity  for  Discharge, 
and  Strengtli  of  our  Pipe. 


Size  of 
Bore. 

Weight 
per  foot. 

Fall  per  ir.O 
feet  without 
any  head. 

Discharg 
Per  Minn 

2 in..  . 

34  lbs. 

12  inches. 

16  ga 

3 “..  . 

5.4  “ 

50  • 

4 “.. . 

84'  “ 

fm  ‘ 

5 “ . . . 

104  “ 

174  ‘ 

6 “ . . . 

13  “ 

H 

277  ‘ 

7 “.. . 

144  “ 

“ 

427  ‘ 

8 ‘C.. 

18  “ 

“ 

570  ‘ 

0 “..  . 

214  “ 

6 inches. 

578  ‘ 

10  “.. . 

274  “ 

1061  ‘ 

12  “.. . 

36  “ 

1220  ‘ 

15  “... 

61|  “ 

“ 

2108  ■ 

18  ■.. . 

T8i  “ 

3306  ‘ 

igim 

-T-^terr 

ils.lper 


VITRIFIED  PIPE, 

Tested  b}’  competent  En- 
sustained  an  in- 
ertial pressure  of  33  lbs. 
per  square  inch. 

CEMENT  PIPE 
jsustained  an  internal  pres- 
sure of  only  8 11)5.  per 
square  inch. 

i VITRIFIED  PIPE, 

'with  a wall  one  inch  thick, 
jSustained  a column  of  wa- 
der 76  feet  high,  while  the 
Cement  Bipe,  with  a wall 
lone  and  a quarter  inches  in 
jthickness,  would  sustain 
;onlv  a column  18  feet  high. 


WE  desire  to  call  the  attention  of  dealers  in  Drain, 
Sewer  and  Water  Pipe  to  the  goods  manufactured 
at  the  Greenwich  Pottery,  confident  that  we  are  offering 
an  article  unsurpassed  b)^  any,  and  much  superior  to  many 
Pipes  in  the  market. 

In  manufacturing  our  goods,  we  use  only  the  fire  clays 
best  adapted  for  the  [mrpose,  and  burn  to  a uniform 
vitrified  body,  that  will  withstand  for  ages  the  action  of 
acids,  sewage  gases,  etc.,  etc.  Our  glazing  is  thoroughly 
burned  to  and  becomes  a part  of  the  body  of  the  pipe,  and 
cannot  be  removed  nor  destroyed  by  acids  or  by  any  other 
means.  Our  pipe  is  uniformly  straight  and  true,  with  suf- 
ficient room  in  the  socket  for  cement. 

We  are  careful  at  all  times  in  selecting  out  all  imperfect 
pipe,  and-  reject  seconds  all  so/i  burned  or  irregular  shai)ed 
pieces. 

Soft  burned  pipe  will  not  last  long  in  the  ground,  nor 
withstand  action  of  frost  if  exposed  to  the  weather.  There 
is  no  economy  in  using  a cheats  pipe  that  will  soon  require 
to  be  replaced,  nor  will  it  improve  a dealer’s  reputation  to 
handle  an  inferior  article. 

Our  pipe  is  made  under  a heavy  steam  pressure,  giving 
them  great  strength  and  solidity,  the  socket  and  pipe  are 
pressed  at  the  same  time,  and  in  one  piece,  making  them 
less  liable  to  breakage  and  more  desirable  for  shipping,  than 
those  made  by  other  manufacturers,  many  of  whom  employ 
hand  labor  to  put  on  the^socket. 

We  do  not  claim  that  ours  is  the  only  good  pipe  ; but 
assert  that  there  are  many  inferior  pipes  offered,  and  we 
know  that  ours  is  one  of  the  VERY  BEST  in  the  market. 

VVe  also  manufacture  Round  and  Oval  FLUE  PIPE, 
for  hot  air  and  ventilating  purposes. 

We  make  an  excellent  FIRE  BRICK,  and  can  furnish 
Fire  Cement  in  any  quantity. 


4 


The  Engineer  for  Construction  of  Sewers,  New  York  City, 
reports  February,  1873,  that  the  cost  of  cleaning  and  keeping 
in  repair  Brick  Sewers  in  no  year  has  been  less  than  ten 
times  the  cost  of  cleaning  and  keeping  in  repair  Pipe  Sewers. 
Some  years  the  difference  has  been  much  greater — this  be- 
ing for  equal  lengths  of  each  sewer. 

We  quote  from  “ Economic  Geology  as  applied  to  the 
Arts  and  Sciences,”  David  Page,  Edinburgh:  “Sewage 
pipes  of  fire  clay,  when  thoroughly  glazed  and  carefully  laid, 
afford  by  far  the  best  material  for  the  purpose  which  science 
has  invented.  Indeed,  so  far  as  experience  goes,  there  is 
nothing  so  durable^  so  clean  and  sweet,  so  easily  flushed,  as 
well  tnade,  well  glazed  fire  ^lay  pipes,  and  thus,  for  sanitary 
purposes,  they  stand  unrivaled.  The  stone  built  drain  re- 
quires a large  amount  of  water  To  flush  it,  decays  in  course  of 
time,  leaks,  becomes  a refuge  for  rats;  while  the  pipe  drain 
is  flushed  with  a mere  trickle  of  water,  endures  for  several 
generations,  and  gives  no  harbor  for  vermin.” 


Beckwith’s  “ Reports,  Pottery,  &c..  International  Exhibi- 
tion, London,  1871,”  says,  “ 'berra  Cotta,  when  properly 
made,  is  one  of  the  most  durable  materials  that  can  be 
used  for  architectural  purposes.  Specimens  made  in  Lon- 
don over  100  years  ago,  exposed  to  the  weather  ever  since, 
are  still  perfect.  The  strength  of  well  made  Terra  Cotta  is 
surprising  ; a piece  of  a 4 inch  column,  tested  at  the  World’s 
Exhibition,  1851,  required  a pressure  of  400  tons  to  the 
square  foot  to  crush  it,  or  as  much  as  granite.” 

In  a paper  read  by  Mr.  C.  Barry  at  the  Architectural  Con- 
ference held  in  London,  he  gave  the  result  of  experiments  on 
Terra  Cotta,  showing  the  crushing  strength  of  this  material 
to  be  7|  times  that  of  brick. 

Vitrified  pipes  in  good  condition  have  been  found  among 
the  ruins  of  ancient  cities,  and  pieces  laid  by  the  Romans 
over  2,000  years  ago  haveTecently  been  dug  up,  still  perfect. 

Our  Pipe  has  been  in  actual  use  a little  over  30  years,  and 
has  in  no  instance  failed  to  stand  the  test,  so  that  we  have 
good  reason  to  be  confident  as  to  its  durability. 


6 


SLIP  GLAZE  versus  SALT  GLAZE 


Certain  manufacturers  who  Salt  Glaze  their  Pipe,  have  en- 
deavored to  create  an  impression  that  it  is  more  durable  than' 
Slip  Glaze,  though  all  concede  that  Slip  Glaze  is  smoother. 

The  object  of  glazing  a pipe  is  not  to  make  it  more  dur- 
able, but  to  make  a smooth  surface.  Vitrified  pipes  that 
never  n'ere  glazed  have  been  dug  up  in  good  condition,  after 
being  buried  centuries. 

The  smoother  the  surface  of  a pipe,  the  more  readily 
Mull  it  discharge  the  contents  of  a sewer,  and  there  will  be 
less  possibility  of  obstruction,  grease  and  solid  substances 
finding  less  to  adhere  to. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  Salt  Glaze  is  not  more  durable 
than  Slip  Glaze.  Chemical  tests  have  shown  that  neither 
are  easily  acted  upon,  yet  after  long  contact  with  acid  the 
Salt  Glaze  was  destroyed,  while  the  Slip  Glaze  was  unin- 
jured. 


7 


It  is  certain  that  a Slip  Glaze  can  only  be  formed  on  a 
clay  strong,  enough  to  resist  the  intense  heat  required  to  melt 
the  Slip.  It  requires  an  equal  heat  to  make  the  best  speci- 
mens of  Salt  Glaze,  but  that  half  Glaze,  which  has  the  ap- 
pearance of  steam  on  the  pipe,  is  the  result  of  an  attempt  to 
Salt  Glaze  a loeak  clay. 

A Slip  Glaze  is  made  by  dissolving  “ Albany  ('lay  ” in 
water,  and  dipping  each  pipe  in  the  solution  prior  to  burn- 
ing. The  “Albany  Clay”  will  not  melt  to  form  a glaze 
except  at  a heat  that  will  run  “ brick  clay”  into  a fluid — a 
heat  which  even  an  inferior  “fire  clay”  cannot  resist. 

A Salt  Glaze  is  made  by  throwing  common  salt  into  the 
kiln  at  certain  stages  of  heat,  M'hich,  by  vaporizing,  pro 
duces  the  dull  glazed  appearance. 

'I'he  material  is  equally  chea])  in  either  case.  'I'he  extra 
handling  makes  the  Slip  Glaze  cost  somewhat  more,  but  we 
believe  it  to  be  the  most  durable  ; we  kno^v  it  makes  a more 
desirable  surface. 


8 


VITRIFIED  versus  CEIEH'T  PIPE. 


The  Opinions  of  Engineers  throughout  the  Country, 
relative  to  the  practical  utility  of  Vitrified  Glazed 
Stoneware  and  Cement  Eipe,  obtained  by  J.  B. 
Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


[TAKEN  FROM  THE  ST.  LOUIS  DEMOCRAT  OF  MARCH  28,  1872,] 


Engineer’s  Department,  ) 

St.  I.ouis,  March  27,  18y3.  f 

To  the  Editor  of  the  Democrat : 

The  question  as  to  the  coniijarative  merits  of  cement 
pipe  and  clay  or  stoneware  pipe,  for  sewerage  purposes,  has 
been  so  thoroughly  agitated  of  late,  perhaps  it  is  no  more 
than  is  due  to  the  public,  the  Sewer  Committee,  and  myself 
that  the  correspondence  which  has  been  had  with  eminent 
civil  engineers  throughout  the  United  States,  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  the  best  attainable  information  on  the  subject, 
should  be  published  in  full;  and  I furnish  you  herewith  the 
whole  of  said  correspondence,  and  request  you  to  publish  it 
all,  pro  and  con,  so  that  our  citizens  may  be  able  to  judge 
for  themselves  whether  or  not  the  Sewer  Committee  acted 
wisely  in  excluding  the  cement  pipe  from  the  city  sewers. 

Yours  respectfully. 


J.  B.  MOUl.TON. 


9 


Southern  Hotel,  ) 

St.  Louis,  August  26,  1872.  j 

Col.  J.  B.  Moulton.  City  Engineer  : 

Sir  : I am  in  -receipt  of  )'our  letter  of  this  date,  in  which  you  state 
that  there  is  now  a controversi’  going  on  as  to  the  relative  value  of 
cement  and  glazed,  or  stoneware,  sewer  pipe  in  this  city,  and  asking 
my  opinion  as  to  the  matter. 

I reply  by  saying  I have  never  used  the  cement  pipe  for  the  pur- 
pose of  sewerage,  and  have  no  personal  knowledge  of  its  value  in 
that  connection. 

While  I had  charge  of  the  sewerage  works  of  Cincinnati,  none  but 
the  vitrified  pipe  was  used,  nor  has  any  other  been  used  in  that  city 
so  far  as  I know.  Only  vitrified  pipe  is  used  in  Washington  at  pre- 
sent, and  I am  not  certain  that  cement  has  ever  been  used  there.  As 
to  whether  there  was  or  was  not  any  scientific  test  made  of  the 
cement  pipe  in  Washington,  I cannot  sat’  until  my  return.  But  it  is 
not  used  there  at  all. 

I regard  the  Scotch  pipe  as  the  best  for  the  purpose  ; and  the 
American,  when  well  made,  as  almost  equal  to  it  I am  of  opinion 
that  cement  pipe  might  be  made  to  answer  well,  but  it  is  open  to  the 
objection  of  jiorousness.  As  a rule,  it  has  less  strength,  and  is  lia- 
ble to  great  variation  in  quality,  growing  out  of  the  dilference  in 
material  and  the  proportions  used,  and,  finally,  from  the  manner  of 
making.  As  to  the  action  of  the  acids  and  alkalies  upon  it,  I should 
not  regard  this  as  a serious  objection,  since  my  observation  upon  the 
mortars  used  in  brick  sewers  satisfies  me  that  there  is  little  danger 
from  this  cause.  I should  prefer  the  vitrified  pipe  by  all  means. 

On  my  return  to  Washington  I will  reply  to  the  other  interroga- 
tories you  propound. 

Veiy  respectfully,  etc., 

R.  C.  Phillips, 

Chief  Engineer  Board  of  Public  Works,  Washington,  D.  C. 


Board  of  Public  Work,  I 
Chicago,  August  27,  1872.  j 

,/.  B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  ; 

Dear  Sir  : In  conformity  with  }'our  request  of  26th,  I send  you 


10 


the  accompanying  copy  of  a report  I made  on  the  i6th  of  July  to 
our  Board,  on  the  subject  of  cement  sewers. 

Since  then  I have  received  a letter  from  the  City  Engineer  of 
Cleveland,  O.,  who  speaks  very  decidedly  in  favor  of  cement  sewers, 
after  an  experience  of  three  3'ears  with  them  in  that  city.  I have 
also  conversed  with  Mr.  Wesson,  who  had  charge  of  the  sewerage 
department  of  the  Croton  Aqueduct  Board  for  a number  of  years, 
and  he  speaks  ver)"  decidedly  against  them.  Me  told  me  that  he 
dug  down  to  quite  a number  in  Jersey  City,  and  found  every  one 
more  or  less  disintegrated  on  the  outside. 

Yours  ver)'  respectfully,  E.  S.  Chesbkough. 

Chicago,  July  16,  1872. 

Board  of  Public  IVorks  : 

Gentlemen:  The  secretary’s  letter  of  the  13th,  informing  me  that 
you  desire  a report  from  me  of  “the  value,”  in  m3'  opinion,  “of 
cement  pipes  for  sewerage  purposes,”  has  been  received.  I take  it 
for  granted  that  the  Board  meant  cement  pipe  as  compared  with 
hard-burnt  or  vitrified  clay,  as  no  other  kinds  are  used  to  any  con- 
siderable extent  in  this  coflntry,  though  ivood,  asphalt,  and  iron  are 
in  particular  localities  used  for  special  reasons. 

I have  given  personal  attention  to  this  subject  for  about  twenty 
3'ears,  and  have  both  conversed  and  corresponded  with  other  en- 
gineers relative  to  it. 

Cement  pipe  sewers  have  their  advocates,  and  are  used  to  a con- 
siderable extent  in  Brooklyn,  Buffalo,  Jersey  City,  and  New  Haven, 
and  other  cities.  Some  have  been  laid  twenty  years,  and  are  in  good 
condition  yet.  Others  have  failed  in  less  than  three  years.  Similar 
failures  occurred  with  hard-burnt  pipes  in  England,  where,  for  years 
alter  their  introduction,  there  was  strongopposition  to  them,  until  their 
manufacture  was  brought  to  comparative  perfection.  Now  the  use  of 
these  pipes  in  that  countr3-  is  ver3'  general,  especially  for  house  drains. 

Either  kind  of  pipe  requires  skill  and  faithfulness  on  the  part  of 
those  in  charge  of  the  laying  of  the  sewers.  The  ease,  however,  of 
judging  of  the  suitableness  of  a burnt  pipe  for  a sewer  is  much 
greater  than  in  the  case  of  a cement  pipe  ; in  fact,  it  is  very  difficult, 
if  not  impossible,  to  be  certain  with  regard  to  the  cement  pipe,  while 
it  is  not  so  with  regard  to  hard-burnt  clav. 


11 


Cement  pipes  have  been  slowly  disintegrated  by  certain  gases  and 
acids  emptied  into  them.  Some  very  striking  instances  of  this  kind 
occurred  in  San  Francisco,  where  urine  from  privies  was  discharged 
into  the  cement  pipes.  Nothing  of  this  kind  has  ever  occurred,  so 
far  as  I can  learn,  with  well  burnt  pipes. 

My  opinion  is  that  hard-burnt  or  vitrified  clay  pipe  should  be  pre- 
ferred for  sewerage  purposes  to  cement  pipe,  because  of  the  much 
greater  certainty  of  getting  a good  article  of  the  former  than  of  the 
latter  ; and  in  this  respect  I have  the  concurrence  of  several  distin- 
guished members  of  my  profession,  who  have  come  to  their  conclu- 
sions on  the  subject  after  years  of  observation  and  experience. 

Respectfull}'’  submitted, 

(Signed)  E.  S.  Ciiesurough,  City  Engineer. 

Okfice  of  the  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  1 
Cincinnati,  August  28,  1872.  \ 

J.  B.  Moulton^  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  the  26th,  making  inquiries  in  regard  to  the 
use  in  this  city  of  cement  pipe  for  public  sewers  is  just  received. 

Our  Commissioners  of  Sewers,  as  well  as  myself,  are  not  in  favor 
of  using  cement  pipe,  for  sewerage  purposes,  confining  ourselves 
entirely  to  the  use  of  glazed  stoneware  or  vitrified  pipe.  We  do 
not  think  the  cement  pipe  for  durability  and  its  capacity  to  resist  the 
action  of  acids  and  other  deleterious  substances  which  are  commit- 
ted to  public  sewers,  hfis  been  sufficiently  tested  b)'  time.  And  we 
have  high  authority  for  believing  pipe  made  of  burnt  clay,  glazed 
and  vitrified,  will  last  for  centuries.  In  matters  of  this  kind,  we  do 
not  care  to  experiment.  Very  truly  yours, 

A.  W.  Gii.dkrt. 


Louisville,  Kv.,  August  28,  1872. 
J.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer,  St.  Louis  : 

Dear  Sir  : I am  in  receipt  of  3'ours  of  the  26th  inst  , asking  m3' 
opinion  of  cement  pipe  for  sewerage  purposes.  I have  to  reply  that 
the  cement  drain  pipe,  as  made  here,  is  good  ; the3'  are  carefull3' 
made,  and  are  more  uniform  and  in  better  shape  than  the  stoneware, 
and  average  about  15  per  cent,  cheaper.  We  are  using  them  in 
almost  all  cases.  Until  recently,  however,  the  stoneware  was  pre- 


ferrecl  ; but,  as  a great  many  of  them  were  shattered  by  burning,  and 
the  supply  becoming  short,  a trial  was  made  of  cement,  which  gave 
perfect  satisfaction.  1 am  of  the  opinion  that  the  cement  drain  will 
answer  every  purpose.  Would  request  your  writing  to  the  Engineer 
of  Brooklyn,  who,  I understand,  is  using  large  quanties,  and  we  are 
using  the  same  “ patent  process”  that  he  is.  Will  cheerfully  give 
further  information  if  desired.  Ver)'  respectfull}', 

Tjios.  P.  Shanks,  City  Engineer. 


Phii.adf.i.phia,  August  29,  1872. 

J . B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  : The  branch  sewers  in  this  city  are  generall}’  built  of 
brick,  and  vitrified  clay  pipes  are  used  for  attachments  and  house- 
drainings,  and  occasionally  for  short  distances  in  streets. 

Cement  pipes  are  manufactured  here  on  a limited  scale,  but,  so 
far  as  my  observation  goes,  have  not  given  satisfaction,  so  much  care 
is  required  iu  obtaining  good  material,  and  having  them  properly 
made,  that  the  quality  cannot  he  depended  on.  Although  somewhat 
cheaper  than  the  vitrified  pipe,  there  is  so  much  uncertainty  in  them 
that  I should  not  he  willing  to  risk  their  general  introduction. 

Cases  have  been  reported  to  me  of  cement  pipes  where  they  have 
all  had  to  be  taken  up,  on  account  of  their  deterioration.  Brick  are 
cheaper  here,  and  of  such  excellent  quality  that  they  have  the  pre- 
ference for  large  size  drain.  Yours  truly, 

Sam’i,  L.  Smedi.ev,  Chief  Engineer. 


BoS'fon,  August  29,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton  : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  note  of  the  26th  inst.  was  received  this  morning,, 
and  in  answer  to  your  inquiries  relative  to  cement  pipe  for  drainage 
purposes,  I beg  leave  to  sa)'  that  the  duty  of  prescribing  or  even 
recommending  the  style  or  material  for  drain  pipes  in  this  city,  does 
not  devolve  upon  me,  but  upon  an  officer  styled  the  “ Superintendent 
of  Sewers,”  who  is  a professional  civil  engineer,  and  has  made 
drainage  engineering  a specialty.  I have  frequent  intercourse  with 
him,  and  our  views  generally  coincide  on  matters  relative  to  his  de- 
partment. He  informs  me  that  he  has  laid  several  thousand  feet  of 


13 


it,  and  has  had  no  trouble  from  sewer  acids,  but  that  it  frequentl)^ 
breaks  or  cracks  longitudinal!}',  when  laid  in  clay  or  heavy  soils  ; 
but  in  sandy  soils,  where  care  is  taken  to  pack  the  sand  well  around 
the  pipe,  it  stands  very  well.  He  also  says  that  he  has  frequently  to 
reject  a portion  of  the  pipe  when  delivered  on  the  ground,  on  ac- 
count of  imperfections.  The  cement  pipe  in  use  in  this  vicinity  is 
made  from  the  best  of  Newark  new  cement  and  sea-washed  gravel, 
screened  to  a size  considerably  coarser  than  the  coarsest  of  bank 
sand,  and  in  some  cases  Portland  Cement  is  used.  The  article  man- 
ufactured here  by  Messrs.  Day  & Collins  is  as  good  a cement  pipe 
as  I have  ever  seen,  but  the  best,  I have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  is 
inferior  to  good  vitrified  clay  pipe. 

If  I had  charge  of  the  sewerage  works  of  this  or  any  other  city,  I 
should  recommend  the  use  of  the  vitrified  clay  pipes  in  preference 
to  cement,  notwithstanding  the  difierence  in  cost.  I regard  cement 
pipe  as  worthless  unless  made  of  the  best  materials,  and  even  then 
it  is  not  as  good  as  the  other.  Yours  truly, 

N.  HENRY  CRAFTS, 

^ City  Engineer. 


Chikk  Engineer’s  Office,  I 
Brooki.yn,  August  29,  1872.  i 

My  Dear  Sir:  Your  note  of  the  26th  inst.,  in  relation  to  cement 
pipe,  is  received.  I have  so  much  correspondence  in  answer  to  in- 
quiries as  to  cement  pipe  that  I had  the  enclosed  copied  by  the 
dozen  to  save  the  trouble  of  writing  special  answers,  and  usually 
confine  myself  to  sending  one  ; but  in  your  case  will  break  through 
my  custom  for,  if  I mistake  not,  we  are  “old  fellows  together.’’ 

In  the  first  place,  the  only  stoneware  pipe  which  is  approved  here 
is  the  imported  “Scotch”  pipe.  It  is -truer  in  shape — a most  im- 
portant feature — more  uniformly  burnt,  less  brittle,  and  with  a better 
glaze.  All  these  merits,  with  the  additional  cost  of  transportation, 
and  consequent  loss  by  breakage,  makes  them  more  expensive  than 
the  American  pipe,  and  it  is  with  this  expense  that  we  compare  the 
cement  pipe.  The  latter,  when  well  made,  as  Knight’s  pipe  is,  and 
well  seasoned,  say  eight  or  nine  months,  is,  so  far  as  we  can  judge> 
equally  good  with  the  “ Scotch”  pipe.  You  know  we  are  beginning  to 


14 


import  Portland  Cement,  as  some  two  or  three  times  the  strength  of 
our  best  cements.  A small  addition  of  this  adds  great  strength  to 
the  cement  pipe.  The  economy  in  first  cost  of  the  best  cement  pipe 
is  still  so  much  cheaper  than  the  “Scotch”  as  to  render  it  popular 
with  the  taxpayers,  even  if  an  occasional  failure  was  the  result.  The 
possible  difference  in  your  clay,  and  the  additional  cost  and  infer- 
iority of  your  cements,  may  render  3'our  stoneware  pipes  even  bet- 
ter than  your  cement  pipe.  I am  free  to  confess  that,  in  my  opinion, 
the  value  of  the  pipe  is  very  largely  due  to  the  careful  and  faithful 
method  of  making  and  seasoning  pursued  by  Knight  in  his  manu- 
facture, and  I would  be  very  cautious  about  using  much  pipe  merel}" 
because  it  was  made  of  cement.  Trulv3’Ours, 

J.  W.  Adain. 


J.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer,  St.  Louis. 

(Statement  inclosed  in  foregoing.) 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Sir  : In  repl3'  to  your  note  of  this  date,  I would  beg  leave  to  say 
that  we  have  laid  the  cement  pipe  of  Knight  to  a large  extent  in  this 
cit3’,  as  the  following  statement  will  show  : 


Year. 

To  1862 

1862  . . . 

1863  

1864. . . 

1865  . . . 

1866  . . . 

1867  . . 

1868  ... 

1869  ... 

1870  ... 


Feet. 

28,987 

24.235 

15.156 

13.475 

45,840 

34.990 

18,033 

78,457 

73,856 

108,513 


And  the  last  year  some  eight  miles  under  contract.  I would  remark 
that  the  method  of  manufacturing  the  pipe  has  much  to  do  with  the 
durability.  Atiy  pipe  of  cement  and  gravel  will  not  answer  ; but 
with  good  cement  and  clean  gravel,  well  rammed,  we  hav'e  found  the 
pipe  to  answer  every  purpose  of  a drain  pipe,  and  no  case  to  my 


knowledge  lias  transpired  where  it  has  given  out  from  the  action  ot 
any  acids  in  the  sewerage.  The  “ Scotch  ” pipe  is  equal  to  it  in  dur- 
ability, but  costs  from  25  to  40  per  cent,  more,  and  the  difference  in 
cost  renders  the  cement  pipe  the  cheaper,  even  with  the  defects 
which  have  appeared  in  some  cases,  attributable  to  the  want  of  sea- 
soning in  the  pipe  after  it  was  made,  and  before  laying.  This  is  im- 
portant to  look  to.  It  is  better  than  the  American  stoneware  pjpe, 
and,  when  made  with  the  precautions  1 liave  named,  is  sufficiently 
reliable.  Respectfull}', 

J.  W.  Adain, 

Chief  Engineer. 


BtiFi'At.o,  August  30,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton  : 

Sir  ; On  receipt  of  your  letter  of  August  26th,  I referred  it  to  Mr. 
Rathbun,  whose  answer  I inclose  and  fully  indorse.  All  the  pipe- 
laid  here  has  been  done  under  my  personal  supervision.  I have 
never  heard  of  an}-  failure  in  any  sewer  where  it  has  been  used. 

The  value  of  the  pipe  depends  entirely  on  the  quality  of  the 
cement  and  the  sand,  and  the  materials  used  here  are  perfectly  sat- 
isfactory. 

Mr.  R.  thinks  that  yours  is  made  from  Louisville  cement,  an  arti- 
cle that  he  would  not  use. 

The  Rosendale  cement  is  brought  from  near  New  York  City, 
although  a good  quality  of  cement  is  made  within  twenty  miles  of 
Mr.  R.’s  works.  Yours  respectfully, 

John  M.  Ditta, 

Engineer. 


[Letter  inclosed  in  the  foregoing.] 

Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  August  29,  1872. 
John  A.  Ditta,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir;  In  looking  over  the  St.  Louis  letter  again,  I observe 
that  Mr.  Moulton  yoiir  opinion,  and  if  you  send  him  the  opin- 

ion of  some  one  else,  he  may  think  you  dodge  the  question. 

I should  say  to  him  tliat  cement  pipes  have  been  in  use,  both  for 
public  and  private  sewers,  in  this  city  for  seven  years,  and  that  no 


IG 


failures  are  reported  ; that  large  quantities  arc  being  continually 
used,  and  further,  th^t  the  parties  engaged  in  their  manufacture  in 
this  city  use  only  the  very  best  of  Rosendale  cement  and  clean, 
sharp  lake  gravel,  and  manufacture  a pipe  that  has  been  univers- 
ally adopted,  etc.,  etc. 

I think  that  if  you  give  him  something  like  the  above,  with  per- 
haps something  else  that  you  may  think  of,  that  it  is  all  that  will  be 
necessary.  Truly  yours,  etc.,  etc., 

C.  H.  Ramibun. 

[From  the  card  enclosed  with  this  letter,  it  appears  that  Mr.  Rath- 
bun  is  a cement  pipe  manufacturer.] 


Oi'i'iCE  OF  Cfi'Y  Engineers,  } 
Pittsburg,  Septembi-r  2,  1872.  [ 

y.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  : Your  favor  of  the  26th  just  received,  and  contents 
noted. 

There  has  been  a prejudice  existing  here  relative  to  cement  pipes, 
caused,  parti}’,  by  disinclination  to  use  an3'thing  that  had  not  been 
thoroughly  tested.  That  prejudice  was  strengthened  by  the  poor 
quality  of  pipe  offered  by  the  party  who  began  to  manufacture  here. 
The  ignorance  of  workmen  as  to  the  proper  treatment  of  cement, 
together  with  the  poor  quality  of  cement  used,  and  the  desire  to  pro- 
duce as  cheap  an  article  as  possible  all  led  to  confirm  the  existing 
antipathy  toward  it  ; but  that  has  given,  or,  rather,  is  giving  way,  at 
present,  to  a more  favorable  impression  ; but  our  Councils  have  not 
yet  authorized  the  use  of  it  for  sewers.  We  are  putting  in  two  short 
pieces  of  it  to  drain  surface  water  across  two  streets.  My  own 
opinion  is  that  pipe  made  out  of  a good  quality  of  Portland  Cement, 
“ English  ” or  “German,”  not  too  much  reduced  by  a disproportion 
of  sand,  will  stand  the  test  required.  In  this  opinion  I am  confirmed 
by  the  success  with  which  it  has  been  used  in  London,  and  a single 
test  that  has  been  made  here,  where  cement  has  not  been  injuriously 
affected  b}’ the  action  of  urine;  but  the  liability  to  get  poor  cement' 
even  of  the  best  brands,  and  the  difficulty  to  get  careful  workmen  to 
manufacture  the  materials,  and  the  difficulty  to  discern  any  flaws  that 
may  be  in  the  pipe,  have  been  deemed  sufficient  reasons  not  to  allow 


17 


its  introduction  here  to  any  great  extent.  The  manufacturer  liere  is 
one  of  the  most  extensive  contractors,  and  he  is  endeavoring  hard  to 
introduce  his  pipe  wlierever  he  can  do  so,  guaranteeing  it  for  a 
length  of  time.  He  lias  now  come  to  the  use  of  “ Portland  Cement” 
in  making  sewer  pipe.  We  have  a company  here  making  “ artificial 
stone”  with  the  same  quality  of  cement,  and  I have  paid  close  atten- 
tion to  their  work,  examining  the  cement  closely,  and  the  conclusion 
to  which  I have  come  is  that  too  much  care  cannot  be  exercised  in 
the  choice  and  manipulation  of  the  material,  and  if  care  is  not  exer- 
cised the  most  unsatisfactory  results  will  be  produced,  but,  as  I have 
said,  there  has  not  been  time  enough  given  here  to  tell  from  any  ex- 
tended experiments  whether  pipe  properly  made  will  withstand  the 
action  of  the  acids  to  which  tliey  are  exposed  in  sewers,  and  there- 
fore a positive  opinion  based  on  actual  experiment  and  observation 
cannot  be  given. 

I think  that  pipe  properly  made  of  the  cement  I have  mentioned 
may  stand,  but  I would  not  like  to  risk  it  in  an)'  extensive  work  ; but 
I do  not  think  it  will  stand  if  made  of  any  other  than  that  quality  of 
cement. 

Regretting  that  I cannot  give  you  any  more  definite  information 
relative  thereto,  and  hoping  that  if  any  instances  throwing  light  on 
the  subject  fall  under  your  observation,  you  will  communicate  to 
Yours  respectfully. 

A.  Dempster. 


Baltimore,  September  2,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  ; 

Sir  ; Your  communnication  of  the  29th  is  at  hand,  and  I must  say 
in  reply  that  we  have  used  the  cement  pipe  manufactured  in  this 
city  in  two  instances  onh'. 

Our  sewers,  for  city  purposes,  are  large — from  four  to  seven  feet 
in  diameter — for  which  we  use  hard  burnt  brick  in  their  con- 
struction. 

Our  experience  with  the  cement  pipe  has  been  such  as  to  compel 
us  to  report  unfavorably  upon  its  future  use. 

Two  years  ago  we  laid  about  too  feet  of  the  pipe,  six-inch  diam- 
eter, for  the  purpose  of  drawing  a spring  ; about  six  months  ago  we 


18 


were  obliged  to  open  it  for  repairs,  it  liaving  failed  to  drain,  when 
we  found  it  had  softened  or  yielded  to  the  action  r)f  water  to  such  an 
extent  as  to  render  two  sections  useless. 

In  regard  to  the  “ stoneware,”  or  glazed  pipe,  I can  say  nothing 
officially,  not  havdng  used  it  for  cit)'  purposes.  It  is,  however,  quite 
extensively  used  for  private  sewers,  and  seems  to  answer  very  well. 

You  will  excuse  haste.  Should  you  wish  further  information  on 
the  subject,  I will  be  pleased  to  furnish  in  detail  all  I have. 

Very  respectfully, 

Jno.  H.  Tegmeges, 

City  Engineer.  . 


Toledo,  September  2,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  ; 

Dear  Sir  : Here  the  use  of  cement  pipe  was  discontinued  after  a 
short  trial,  and  the  vitrified  salt-glazed  pipe  exclusively  used  in  the 
construction  of  our  pipe  sewers,  connections,  etc.,  which  I think  to 
be  quite  superior  to  any  cement  pipe  which  I have  seen  tested,  in 
evenness  of  texture,  firmness,  durability,  and  its  qualities  to  resist 
the  action  of  sewer  acids.  Yours  respectfully, 

M.  C.  Tiia'iciier, 

Citv  Engineer. 


Minneai'olis,  Mi.nn.,  September  2,  1872. 

J . B.  Moulton,  Esq.  ; 

De.ar  Sir  ; The  experiments  I have  made  with  cement  sewer  pipe 
are,  that  I filled  a pipe  with  salt  and  water,  and  find  that  salt  acts  on 
them  so  that  I think  it  would  eat  a hole  through  in  no  ver}’  long 
time.  Acids  will  have  a greater  effect  on  them.  And  1 know  of  no 
means  of  ascertaining  which  are  good  and  which  are  poor.  In  our 
city  here,  for  the  above  reasons,  I recommended  the  use  of  vitrified 
stoneware  pipe,  which  was  adopted  by  the  City  Council. 

I would  be  pleased  to  receive  a copy  of  your  laws  relative  to  the 
pa3'ing  for  sewers,  paving,  etc.  Rcspectfull)'  yours, 

H.  Carson, 

Citv  Engineer. 


19 


Memi’IIIs,  Tp:nn.,  September  2,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  : We  have  no  sewerage  here  worth  mentioning.  What 
we  have  is  of  the  vitrified  “stoneware,”  with  the  exception  of  cement 
pipe  laid  from  a hotel  to  the  river.  I have  not  had  an  opportunity  of 
examining  the  latter,  but  am  inclined  to  prefer  the  vitrified  pipe. 

Respectfully, 

J.  H.  Humphreys, 

City  Engineer. 

Little  Rock,  Ark.,  September  2,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  ; Your  letter,  dated  August  2gth,  asking  my  opinion  in 
regard  to  cement  sewer  pipe,  and  those  of  stoneware,  has  come  dul)’ 
to  hand. 

I have,  therefore,  the  honor  to  state  that,  in  my  opinion,  stoneware 
pipes  are  far  preferable  to  those  of  cement. 

Your  reason  for  abandoning  the  latter  is,  as  far  as  m3'  experience 
goes,  perfectl}'  correct,  viz.  : the  want  of  uniform  texture,  the  influ- 
ence of  acids,  and  easier  breakage. 

We  have  used  in  our  cit}'  extensive!}’  the  stoneware  pipes,  and 
have  found  the  same,  when  hard  burned,  well  vitrified  and  glazed,  to 
answer  all  reasonable  demands.  Respectfully  yours, 

George  Wehe, 

Citv  Engineer. 


Lawrence,  Kans.,  September  3,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton  : 

Sir:  In  reply  to  your  inquiries  in  regard  to  relative  value  of 
cement  and  stoneware  pipes,  I can  only  sa}-  that  I have  used  stone- 
ware pipes  with  entire  satisfaction.  Specimens  of  cement  pipe  have 
been  left  at  this  and  other  cities.  They  are  too  delicate  for  use,  and 
fall  to  pieces  with  the  slightest  blow.  We  have  local  manufactories, 
which  make  ver3’fair  stoneware  and  earthenware  pipes  at  reasonable 
prices.  I can  see  no  good  reason  for  abandoning  them  for  a mere 
experiment.  Respectfully  yours, 

Holland  Wheeler,  City  Engineer, 


20 


Hartford,  Conn.,  September  3,  1872. 
y.  B.  MoultoHy  Esq,,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir;  \ours  of  the  2gth  came  to  hand  yesterday,  and,  in 
repl}',  I would  say  that  very  recently  our  Board  of  Street  Commis- 
sioners decided,  on  my  recommendation,  not  to  lay  atiy  more  cement 
tile.  I was  led  to  give  this  advice  from  a general  idea  of  their  worth- 
lessne.'-s,  which  has  been  proved  in  several  cases  when  we  have  taken 
up  such  sewers,  some  of  quite  recent  construction.  We  found 
length  after  length  entirely  crumbled,  and  others  that  we  succeeded 
in  lifting  out  of  the  trench  would  break  with  a ver)'  slight  blow.  I 
think  your  reasons  all  hold  good,  and  are  sufficient  to  condemn  their 
use. 

We  also  object  to  the  glazed  tile,  from  difficult}'  of  entering  them 
for  side  sewers,  as  we  have  not  yet  adopted  the  plan  of  laying  side 
connections  when  we  lay  the  main  sewer.  We  shall,  in  accordance 
with  the  above  decision,  hereafter  lay  nothing  but  brick  sewers,  the 
smaller  ones  of  oval  form,  the  large  circular.  If  our  experience  is 
worth  anything  to  you,  I am  glad  to  be  able  to  give  it  to  you. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

C.  H.  Bunce,  City  Surveyor. 


Jersey  City,  September  3,  1872. 

y.  B.  Aloulton,  Esq.  ; 

Dear  Sir:  In  transmitting  to  you  my  opinion  in  regard  to  the 
merits  of  concrete  drain  and  sewer  pipes,  I would  say  that  my  ex- 
perience has  led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  vitrified  or  glazed  pipes, 
are  superior  in  every  particular,  and  I have  ordinarily  endeavored  to 
use  as  little  cement  pipe  as  possible.  There  can  be  no  real  ques- 
tion of  which  is  the  best. 

I have  given  this  subject  the  most  thorough  attention,  and  I am 
confident  1 am  right,  and  time  will  prove  it.  Cement  pipe  never 
will  answer  a safe  purpose  until  it  can  be  manufactured  so  as  not  to 
become  disintegrated  after  being  laid  in  the  trench  and  covered.  I 
have  known  a sewer  to  cave  in  built  of  it,  and  make  a most  disagree- 
able state  of  affairs,  from  the  fact  of  not  knowing  to  what  extent  the 
break  extended.  Very  respectfully, 

Jno.  P.  Culudo,  Chief  Engineer. 


21 


Richmond,  Va.,  September  3,  1872. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Moulton  ; 

Dear  Sir  ; Within  the  last  year  I have  passed  through  an  exper- 
ience in  sewer  piping,  with  a conclusion  fully  in  accord  with  your 
own.  My  mind  is  settled  on  the  superiority  of  stoneware  pipes,  and 
the  uncertainties  attending  those  of  cement.  I will  not  hereafter  use 
the  cement  pipes  in  our  city  sewerage.  Very  respectfully, 

Chari.es  H.  Dimmock, 

City  Engineer. 


Augusta,  Me.,  September  3,  1872. 
y.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer : , 

Dear  Sir  : Your  favor  of  the  29th  is  at  hand,  and  in  reply  I would 
say  my  opinion  in  regard  to  cement  pipes  is  the  same  as  your  own. 
Have  found  the  same  difficulty  in  regard  to  the  texture  of  the  pipes 
not  being  equal.  Any  one  can  see  at  a glance  that  the  cement  pipes 
will  absorb  the  acids  of  the  sewer,  which  will  certainly  destroy  them. 
Were  the  sewers  under  my  charge,  I should  certainly  use  the  vitrified 
pipes  for  their  conducting  power  alone,  the  polished  surface  present- 
ing little  or  no  resistance  to  the  water  and  foreign  matter.  I do  not 
know  what  patterns  you  ma)^  have,  but  the  sleeve  joint  of  our  stone 
pipes  is  much  better  than  that  of  the  cement  pipes.  I am  interested 
to  know  what  the  result  will  be.  Should  you  have  the  leisure  or  in- 
clination to  respond,  please  address 

Nat  Abbott, 

City  Engineer. 


Baltimore,  September  4,  1872, 

J.  B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  29th  ult.,  directed  to  the  “ Engineer 
of  the  City  of  Wheeling,”  and  requesting  information  as  to  our  ex- 
perience with  cement  and  stoneware  pipes,  I have  to  say  that  I be- 
lieve the  former  have  not  been  at  all  used  in  Wheeling  for  sewers, 
unless  it  may  have  been  by  private  parties,  of  which  I have  no 
knowledge. 

My  opinion  would  be  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  glazed  pipe, 
within  range  of  capacity  suited  to  its  strength. 


2'i 

Should  you  publisli  the  result  of  your  inquiries  on  this  subject,  I 
beg  you  will  favor  me  with  a copy.  Respectfully, 

W.  C.  Smith, 

City  Surveyor,  Wheeling,  Va. 


Newark,  N.  J.,  September  4,  1872. 

y.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  ; Your  communication  of  the  2gth  ult.  is  received.  In 
this  city  we  use  for  the  smaller  local  sewers  glazed  stoneware  pipe. 
No  cement  pipe  whatever  is  used. 

I have  used  cement  pipe  in  railroad  drainage,  and  found  that 
it  breaks  easily.  My  opinion  is  that  the  stoneware  pipe  is  de- 
cidedly preferable  to  the  cement  pipe  for  sewer  purposes  The  want 
of  time  is  my  e.KCuse  for  the  brevity  of  this  reply. 

Yours  trul}', 

Gustav  Schalbach,  City  Surveyor.  , 


City  Engineer’s  Office  / 
Sfringfiei.u,  Ii.i,.,  September  5,  1872.  \ 
y.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  : 

De.ar  Sir  : Yours  of  the  29th  ult.  was  received,  and  I owe  you  an 
apology  for  not  answering  sooner.  In  answer  to  your  request  for 
my  opinion  on  the  subject  of  using  vitrified  glazed  stoneware  pipe, 
as  compared  to  cement  pipe,  for  sewers,  I will  say  that,  for  myself, 
I should  much  prefer  the  stoneware  pipe,  as  your  assertion  that  the 
cement  pipe  is  seldom  of  a perfectly  uniform  texture,  and  is  very 
easily  broken,  is  true,  and  I don’t  consider  it  as  safe  and  durable  as 
the  stone  pipe.  If  you  have  laid  much  of  the  cement  pipe,  I think 
your  experience  has  taught  you  that,  when  the  cement  pipe  is  satu- 
rated with  water,  it  becomes  very  brittle  and  difficult  to  la)'  with  suc- 
cess ; and  unless  I was  laying  sewers  of  very  large  calibre,  where  I 
could  lay  it  in  the  ground  like  concrete,  I should  much  prefer  the 
stoneware,  as  I am  satisfied  it  will  be  as  enduring  as  time.  Will 
you  take  the  trouble  to  give  me  your  form  of  ordinance  for  estab- 
lishing the  grades  of  your  city,  and  such  ideas  as  3-011  may  be  will- 
ing to  suggest?  Very  respectfully, 

W.  D.  Cl.ARK. 


k 


New  11a\'EN,  Ct.,  September  6,  1872. 
y.  B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir:  Your  favor  of  tlie  29th  inst.  was  dul)'  received. 

As  an  answer  to  your  questions  concerning  cement  pipes  for  sew- 
ers, etc.,  1 will  state  that  the  city  of  New  Haven  has  used  nothing 
but  cement  pipes  for  the  pipe  sewers  that  have  been  constructed 
here,  and  large  quantities  are  still  being  used. 

Thus  far  we  h,ave  had  no  trouble  with  them,  and  so  far  as  I have 
examined  them  where  they  have  been  down  a number  of  years,  to 
all  appearances  they  arc  better  than  when  first  laid. 

E.  S.  Chesbrough,  Esq.,  Cit}'  Engineer  of  Chicago,  who  is  the 
author  of  our  “ Sewerage  System,”  does  not  approve  of  their  use 
here,  and  we  consider  him  the  best  of  authority.  Probably  the  pipe 
made  here  are  as  good  as  any  in  the  country,  and  appear  to  stand 
well  wherever  used  ; still,  for  all  that,  I do  not  approve  of  their  use. 
I believe  there  are  other  drain  pipes  made  which  can  be  relied  on 
without  ant’  doubt,  anti  to  see  such  quantities  of  cement  pipe  used 
here  in  the  construction  of  our  sewers  causes  me  some  uneasiness^ 
for  the  time  may  come  when  we  shall  find  that  the  experiment  has 
been  trietl  on  too  large  a scale.  I have  sent  you  one  of  our  “ Year 
Books,"  containing  some  information  concerning  our  sewers.  Any 
reports  relating  to  sewerage  in  your  city  wotdd  be  thankfully  re- 
ceived. Respectfull)', 

CiiAS.  E.  Fowi.er,  City  Engineer. 


Natchez,  Miss.,  September  6,  1872. 

J.  B.  MouUoti,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  ; I am  unable  to  add  my  evidence  in  reply  to  your 
favor  of  August  29.  Natchez  has  never,  is  not  now,  nor  will,  I think, 
as  long  as  governed  by  negro  gentlemen,  be  blessed  with  sewers 
beyond  brick  culverts. 

The  Natchez,  Columbus  and  Jackson  Railroad,  now  in  construc- 
tion, Colonel  S.  M.  Preston,  Engineer,  are  using  vitrified  piping  for 
culverts  in  preference  to  cement  pipes.  What  their  objections  are, 
I am  not  aware  of.  Sorry  that  I am  not  able  to  oblige  you, 

I remain, 

Ch.vs.  C.  Nauck,  City  Engineer. 


2i 


Paterson,  N.  J.,  September  6,  1872. 
y.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer : 

Dear  Sir  : Yours  of  August  29th,  in  reference  to  the  use  of  cement 
sewer  pipe,  is  at  hand.  I regret  that  I am  unable  to  give  you  any 
information  that  will  be  of  service.  We  have  no  experience  as  to 
cement  sewer  pipe  in  this  city,  never  having  used  any  but  the  Scotch 
vitrified  ware,  and  no  other  can  be  used  unless  the  ordinances  of  the 
city  are  changed. 

As  with  you,  a pressure  is  made  on  our  Board  of  Aldermen,  by 
the  manufacturers  of  cement  pipe  here,  to  have  their  pipe  substi- 
tuted, but  thus  far  without  success.  I am  prejudiced  against  their 
use,  except  for  clear  water  ; have  examined  the  process  of  making 
cement  pipe,  and  do  not  believe  that  sufficient  care  is  taken  to  have 
them  of  uniform  texture,  and  that  if  sufficient  water  be  used  to  make 
the  mass  homogeneous,  the  time  taken  to  have  the  pipe  properly 
made,  and  the  cement  well  set,  would  make  the  cost  of  cement  pipe 
as  great  as  vitrified  ware.  The  question  is  now  being  agitated  here, 
and  if  in  your  inquiries  in  other  quarters  you  arrive  at  a conclusion, 
whether  favorable  to  their  use  or  otherwise,  1 will  be  under  many 
obligations  to  3'ou,  if  you  will  mail  the  information  to  me  (if  printed). 
I intend  to  make  some  investigation  in  this  direction,  as  soon  as  I 
can  spare  the  time  ; until  then,  I do  not  believe  any  change  in  the 
character  of  the  pipe  will  be  made  by  our  Board  of  Aldermen. 

Yours  very  truU', 

A.  II.  Fonda, 

City  Engineer. 

Lynn,  September  7,  1872. 

y.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir  : I received  your  letter  a few  days  ago,  and  have  delaj'- 
ed  answering  it,  thinking  I might  get  some  information  from  Salem, 
but  have  been  disappointed. 

We  have  never  used  the  cement  pipe,  though  often  urged  to  do 
so  ; therefore,  I cannot  speak  from  experience,  but  have  been  told 
of  instances  where  sewage  had  taken  the  life  out  of  the  pipe,  so 
that  it  crumbled  to  pieces. 

The  Committee  on  Drainage  have  examined  the  subject  at  differ- 
ent times,  and  have  always  used  brick  or  stoneware  for  sewers. 


25 


A few  private  parties  have  used  the  pipe,  and  I have  noticed  that 
there  was  a difference  in  the  pieces.  Some  were  hard,  and  others 
would  crumble  in  the  hand.  I have  been  told  that  in  Salem  and 
Boston  they  had  been  obliged  to  take  up  some  cement  pipe  which 
had  been  laid  only  a few  years. 

Yours  respectfully, 

Isaac  K.  Harris, 

City  Engineer. 

« 

Providence,  September  6,  1872. 

y.  B.  Motilion,  City  Engineer  ; 

Dear  Sir  : The  Sewerage  Department  of  this  city  have  used  no  ce- 
ment pipes  for  the  same  reasons  that  you  name,  although  they  are  made 
in  this  city,-  and  used  for  that  purpose  by  private  parties  The  very 
best  imported  pipes  are  used  for  sewers.  I can  see  no  reason  wh)^ 
the  cement  pipes  should  not  be  used  to  a limited  extent,  where  the 
circumstances  are  favorable,  and  where  not  subject  to  the  action  of 
acids.  There  seems  to  be  some  difference  of  opinion  among  prac- 
tical men  about  them,  but  in  deference  to  Mr.  Shedd’s  opinion  (the 
Chief  Engineer  of  the  Water  Works),  there  are  none  now  used  by 
the  cit}’.  Yours  truly, 

Charles  E.  Payne, 

City  Engineer. 


Omaha,  Neb.,  September  8,  1872. 

J.  B.  Moulton,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  29th  ult  is  received.  In  repl}'  I will 
state  that  this  city  has  made  but  ver)f  little  use  of  cement  pipe  of  any 
kind;  but  the  Omaha  and -Northwestern  Railroad  Company  have 
had  in  the  neighborhood  of  1,500  feet  placed  upon  their  road  some 
six  months  ago,  all  of  which  proved  a failure,  owing  to  their  want  ol 
sufficient  strength  to  support  the  requisite  pressure. 

From  my  observations  of  the  pipe,  I should  not  recommend  it  for 
sewerage  purposes  : 

I.  Because  they  are  more  or  less  subject  to  disintegration  from 
acids. 


2.  Their  peculiar  construction  requires  a better  class  of  skilled 
labor  in  the  setting  than  is  usually  secured. 

3.  Their  efficiency  depends  so  much  upon  the  peculiar  selection 
of  material  entering  their  composition,  that  few  manufacturers  man- 
age to  secure  a proper  cement  and  proportion  of  clean  gravel  or 
sand  requisite  in  pipes  for  sewer  purposes. 

Mr.  K.  C.  Phillips,  formerly  City  Engineer  of  Cincinnati,  and 
now  Chief  Engineer  of  Public  Works  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
while  here  lately,  e.Kpressed  himself  to  me  as  in  favor  of  glazed  clay 
pipe  in  prefeftnce  to  those  of  cement.  With  regrets  that  I have 
been  unable  to  reply  earlier  to  your  letter  of  inquiry,  I remain. 
Yours  respectfully, 

Andrew  Ro.skwater,  City  Engineer." 

Kkf.ne,  N.  H.,  September  12,  1872. 
y.  B.  Moulton,  Esq.,  City  Engineer  : 

Dear  Sir:  Yours  of  the  29th  ultimo  was  dul)'  received  in  mv  absence. 
We  have  as  yet  but  little  e.xperience  in  sewerage  in  this  place.  I have 
made  some  inquiries  as  to  the  best  material,  and  the  general  opinion 
is  that  the  hard  burnt,  well  vitrified  stoneware  pipes  would  be  prefer- 
able for  sewerage  tcj  cement.  Yours,  very  truly', 

Ceo.  W.  Studkvant,  City  Engineer. 

THE  ("OST  OF  CLEANING  SEWERS. 

E.xtract  from  a statement  made  by  ihe  Engineer  for  the  construc- 
tion of  sewers  of  the  city  of  New  York  (published  February  3,  1873) : 

The  usual  price  of  cleaning  sewers  by  hand  is  about  $2.50  per  load, 
and  while  under  a good  sewer  system  solid  deposits  should  be  car- 
ried off  with  the  flow,  the  city  has  been  yearly  paying  from  $27,000  to 
$46,000  per  year  to  remove  them.  It  is  notorious  that  persons  who, 
under  the  old  Tammany  regime,  had  the  contracts  for  cleaning  these 
sewers,  finding  it  |)rofitable  to  remove  the  deposits  at  $2.50  per  load, 
were  in  the  habit  of  putting  obstructions  in  the  sewers  with  a view 
of  creating  solid  deposits.  The  present  Commissioner  of  Public 
Works  has,  however,  put  a stop  to  all  this,  and  last  year  reduced  the 
cost  of  cleaning  the  sewers  to  $14,412  against  $44,690  for  the  year 
1871.  The  following  table  furnished  by  Engineer  Towle  shows  the 
comparative  cost  of  cleaning  brick  and  pipe  sewers  from  1867  to 


27 


1871  inclusive.  The  water  supply  having  increased  last  year,  the 
department  has  resorted  to  the  flushing  process,  and  two  or  three 
nights  per  week  the  water  from  the  hydrants  have  been  let  into  the 
sewers,  reducing  the  expense  of  cleaning  for  the  year  to  $14,000. 


Proportioilate 
Cost  ot 
Cleaning 
Brick  to  Pipe 
Sewers. 

261  46-100  to  1 
241  48-100  to  1 

55  46-100  to  1 

32  18-100  to  1 

34  61-100  to  1 

Proportion 
of  Brick  to 
Pipe. 

7 5-100  to  1 

4 81-100  to  1 

3 78-100  to  1 

3 34-100  to  1 

3 32-100  to  1 

cn 

pa 

Cd 

> 

w 

g 

Cost 
of  Re- 
moval. 

to  0 » 0 

0 0 ^ to 

^ *0  Tti  <M 

Num- 
ber of 
Loads 
Re- 
moved. 

0 0 © r- 
10  00  © o>  0 
to  10 

* 

Ph 

Total  i 
Length  ■ 
in  City  in 
Linear 
Feet. 

150,022 

222,020 

288,120 

335,313 

346,903 

s 

bl 

0 

e£ 

Cost  of 
Removal. 

! 

1 

<5^  to  © © iO 
ao  © CO  CO 

«0  1 
oToo^r^c^eo 
eo  tj’ 

Num- 
ber of 
Loads 
Re- 
moved. 

13,073 

19,858 

11,002 

18,518 

17,374 

Total 
Length 
in  City  in 
Linear 
Feet. 

1,058,136 

1,068,817 

1,088,911 

1,120,234 

1,152,054 

Years.  1 

1-*  00  © © r-t 
© © © 

© © © 00  © 

28 


Engineer’s  Office,  ) 

Department  Public  Works.  >- 
New  York,  March  13,  1872.  ) 

Dear  Sir  : Your  letter  of  the  iith  inst.,  in  relation  to  comparative 
value  of  cement  and  vitrified  glazed  pipes  used  for  the  conducting 
of  sewage  is  received. 

This  department  uses  the  vitrified  glazed  pipes  for  small  sewers. 
There  has  been  no  cement  pipes  used  for  this  purpose  in  this  city. 

Some  of  our  brick  sewers  have  been  injured  by  the  action  of 
acids  eating  up  the  cement  in  the  joints. 

Mr.  Tracy  joins  with  me  in  sa3dng  that  when  acids  and  gases  are 
carried  in  the  sewer  (and  they  carry  very  varied  compounds),  that 
the  acids  will  disintegrate  the  cement  pipes,  or  at  least  cause  such 
risk  as  that  it  would  be  better  to  put  in  the  vitrified  pipes,  which 
have  been  found  to  withstand  this  chemical  action. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

John  C.  Campbell, 

1st  Assistant  Engineer. 


AVKY  LIDP.M.Y 
CQI.UM«A  UNI  ’Y 


6 


TO  MANUFACTURE  VITRIFIED  DRAIN  PIPE. 


